Talk:Cheonho-dong

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheonho-dong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051102035337/http://www.gangdong.go.kr/pub/eng/ to http://www.gangdong.go.kr/pub/eng/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed statement and source

I have removed the statement that Cheonho-dong has one of the largest red-light districts in Seoul and its associated source. The source in question (rocketreports.com) cannot in any way be considered reliable, as it is an anonymous blog loaded with sex ads. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Reinstated with different source --John B123 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am reverting this edit. The source doesn't say that "By Cheonho subway station is one of the largest red-light districts in Seoul." On the contrary, the source, in addition to talking about the situation back in the 1980s, states that as of 2010 (eight years ago), "[brothels] in Cheonho-dong in southeastern Seoul and Yeongdeungpo in southwestern Seoul are rapidly losing customers." Somewhat the opposite of the text you've restored. Didn't you even take a close look at the source? 147.46.57.248 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you are trying to suppress the fact the red-light exists, but the fact is it does exist and your disruptive edits do not change that. --John B123 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

To JohnB123… my first edit was only to eliminate a claim (“one of the largest…”), made by an unreliable source, as well as the source itself. My second edit was to eliminate the same claim, which was NOT in the source supplied. (By the way, I notice that your most recent edit does not restore those words.)

I have given clear reasoning for my edits, which you seem to have ignored. Your hostility and assumption of bad faith on my part, as if I’m acting merely to be disruptive, do you no credit. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Come on. There's a world of difference between eliminating the claim “one of the largest…” and the source of that quote to removing all references to the red-light district on the page, including the category, --John B123 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I acted to remove an unreliable source and increase accuracy. Yet you continue to assume bad faith on my part. Frankly, I don't see much of a point, in such a short article on an administrative district, to even mention its brothels. Seems out of balance with the article length. In any case, what is there seems accurate now, even if imbalanced. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I rest my case. --John B123 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Good. Glad to hear it. And may you never again, in your rush to pinpoint brothel districts, bring a dubious statement to the page along with an unreliable blog source, as you seem to have done here. And may you never again restore that inaccurate statement by citing a different source which does not include that fact and indeed seems to imply the opposite, as you did here. Mistakes that you still don’t seem to acknowledge, btw. (Note that I never accused you of bad faith here, and even corrected a typo in your last edit.) You're welcome. I’m glad we’ve come to a resolution here. 147.46.57.248 (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)